bodhi

I’ll preface with IANACL, but you seem to be making a moral argument yourself about A), that it is not reasonable.

You have, I assume, a licensed copy of Harry Potter. That license restricts you from doing certain activities, like making (distributing? Lets go with distributing) derived works. Your models are derived works. Thus when you distribute your models, you’re violating the licence terms you “agreed” to when you acquired your copy of Harry Potter.

This is no judgement by me about whether that’s reasonable or not, just my understanding of the mechanics.

Do you mean SAML and/or generic OIDC? We’ve got a Metabase instance authenticating people via Google Workspaces (G Suite).

Its a loquacious take on “fell off the back of a truck”.

“Nightmare” is too strong, but it looks from the simple example that generators are managed by jumping between coroutines, and one of the coroutines is the renderer? (Sorry, I’m on my phone and probably not conveying my point very well)

I’d be interested in seeing this hooked up to Xstate.

How about phishing?

What are peoples thoughts on using TLS client certificates for authentication?

Given we're talking about APIs, we avoid many of the UX problems, but it feels like taking on a different set of problems than just using a bearer token. It does provide baked in solutions for things like revocation and expiry though.

Here in Australia we get a mix of US and British kids shows (on ABC Kids, have no idea what is shown on commercial channels), and its trivially easy to pick the US ones because they are dripping in morals, lessons, and such (and are also terrible).

I've started describing it to people as: British shows are designed to entertain first, and perhaps kids can learn something, whereas the US approach is THOU SHALT MAKE SURE CHILDREN UNDERSTAND RIGHT AND WRONG!.

If I understand you correctly, you've just increased your output latency by 50% ;)

You might be missing the "down" part of each slide? In the bottom right corner there's the 4-arrow thing, and if down is 'not disabled', there are more slides to see.

I can't stand this kind of "2-d" presentation...

It already appeared, and is called Purescript. It's great, and it's about as likely to gain traction as Haskell.

Perhaps it's related to self-identification? People don't self-identify as cancerous, the cancer (or disease?) is an external actor invading the body. Whereas a disability is a feature or aspect of one's body.

(I don't have first hand experience with either, so I'm just musing too..)